tv Cabinet Secretaries Testify on Infrastructure Proposal CSPAN March 15, 2018 10:58pm-2:12am EDT
[inaudible conversations] >> i believe he is running for office. some of these former politicians just can't stop schmoozing, can they? [laughter] >> let's do this. good morning. today we are here to discuss infrastructure in america. 9056 president eisenhower saw the need to move people and goods quickly across the country and their vision paid of helping to fuel fears of economic
growth. infrastructure to open a air continues to be overall today but that would take -- face the challenge of maintaining this critical access. it would have been impossible to predict a few decades ago. for instance with the rise of the internet cell phones we face a new challenge of building up a structure to facilitate access to these technologies for everyone. the principle is the same today as it was then her nation must stay interconnected. unfortunately we are all familiar with this. 56,000 structurally deficient bridges and eight billion hours that americans are stuck in traffic each year and the list goes on. he is less time with family and lower growth. in rural states like south dakota nights of americans lack access to reliable high-speed internet and links between agriculture communities in global markets hurt our farmers and ranchers.
in response to these needs president trump released an ambitious proposal to rebuild nations infrastructure by generating $1.5 million in total assessment over the next 10 years per the proposal would receive project or very limiting the permanent process of reforming workforce training programs rate of participation today five cabinet secretaries and today's hearing. something i might add that it's extraordinary f. underscore sid administrations readiness and enthusiasm to work closely with the commerce committee and the rest of congress on infrastructure. collectively we share the goal of developing a bipartisan plan that works for rural in urban areas alike. the committee is joined today by the very distinguished panel. we have elaine chao secretary of transportation wilbur ross secretary commerce alex shulkin secretary of labor sonny perdue the secretary of agriculture ann rick perry secretary of energy. the finance o committee will examine what can afford and how
we pay for it. we in the commerce committee first need to get there policy right and make sure we are moving together with other relevant committees of jurisdiction. weas we do so i would offer a fw principles for consideration by my colleagues. first this is not another highway bill. we will consider other destruction needs such as world where our band and water project to break down barriers that are heating employment help types of infrastructure but along these lines it takes a broader approach to infrastructure and offers several policy ideas to speed employment. second we should build on our successful program and where necessary remove inefficiencies. defenestration's proposal outlined important reforms to existing programs particularly the m. for structure financing side. third we must ensure legislation is national in scope and all areas are appropriately included. rural committees facing difficultiespp due to lower
population and challenging geography. i appreciate the administration's proposal acknowledges the need to in rural communities that lack necessary infrastructure investing inti these areas in america will benefit the entire country. porcelain improving of the structures in area where bipartisan agreement should be achievable through both sides invest and modernize their infrastructure. both sides want that investment to address an array of infrastructure needs not only was a bridges but also things that broadband and water. both sides want to break down barriers for innovative technologies on both sides want to make their existing programs work better. as exemplified by the ranking member's willingness to work with me on legislation both sides can come together oned ths and it can happen this year. again i want to say thank you forr this distinguished panel of witnesses for being here today
and i look forward to hearing your perspective and suggestions for collaboration between the administration and congress on infrastructure. now i'm going to turn to our ranking member senatores nelson for his opening statement. senator nelson. >> mr. chairman thank you. i think it's quite significant that i can speak to our state and we have two secretaries here from florida, secretary ross, secretary shulkin. what we know in florida the third largest state growing at 1000 people a day it's emblematic of the additional demand not only to build new infrastructure but to repair infrastructure whether it's roads, bridges and how many bridges, thousands that we havee in this country that are
structurally deficient named by the engineers. whether its seaports, airports, water plants, s expansion of broadband also desperately needed particularly in the growth states but even in the non-growth states in rural states where they are desperate to have broadband so their children, their students in school can have the learning tools that others in urban areas that have access to 5g so that they have equal opportunity to an education. but the question is how do you pay for it? we went out and borrowed $1.5 trillion to pay for a huge tax cut that is added to our national debt.
the president has proposed an infrastructure plan that says $200 billion but there is no plan for how you are going to pay for it. how are you going to give members of the senate to vote for the tax revenue in order to pay for these plans? we can all agree the infrastructure needs are absolutely overwhelming. indeed you saw with some of the dollars for infrastructure from the stimulus bill to help us get out of the recession, the severe recession that we were in and get we had sitting on the table the first project for high-speed rail to go right down the middle of interstate four. the right-of-way was already
fare in the state of florida and the governor of florida turned down $2.4 billion on the table to do that huge infrastructure projects that the florida department of transportation's duddy in fact showed it would pay for itself in the first year and by the tenth year would be making $30 million a year. it was a missed opportunity and so how are we going to pay for? it ought to be clear we can't pull our way out of it. we have used toll roads in florida veryry well and it helps but you can't expect all of the travelers of this country to go out and pay to get on a road to
address this infrastructure crisis. a few of our colleagues have put out a plan for a trillion dollars, a trillion dollars of infrastructure. we know it's there but we also know in order to pay foras it yu are going to have to go back. could we not just instead of a taxt cut that went from 35% corporate down to 21%, could we not ring that down 10 points, to 25% and use that additional revenue for infrastructure? this is real money and it would be completely paid for with that trillion dollar infrastructure plan. i will give you just a couple of examples and closing mr. chairman and we can expand.
i for -- we could expand by four and rebuild the bridge across tampa bay and expand high-speed internet service. we can also up grade the 911 system that is desperately in need of upgrading and we could invest in projects like many in the testimony today that were mentioned and that's why i want to work with you mr. chairman and my colleagues on this committee to see if we can come up with good ideas in which to move forward. the clock is ticking and we can afford to ignore the infrastructure needs of this country. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator nelson. as i mentioned we have a very distinguished panel with us today and we will ask as much as
the members of the cabinet can to confine their oral statements of five tenets and make sure with all the materials included as a matter of the hearing we will give opportunities to members of the committee and i suspect we have a lot of people who want to ask questions and opportunity to do that. it will start with the secretary of transportation, secretary chao. thank you for being here and please proceed. >> members of the committee thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. the nations infrastructure is the backbone for world-class economy the most productive flexible and dynamic in the world and is the key to our economic growth and productivity productivity. but as you have heard too much infrastructure is aging and in need of repairs. the challenges are everywhere. traffic congestion sent delayse cost drivers $160 billion annually. a quarter for nations bridges that view of heard are structurally deficient which
means they are needed improvement and not unsafe. 20% of our roads are important addition at the rural america which accounts for an emperor portion of a high percentage of our nation's highway fatalities have been ignored for too long. that is why 12 pages have come together to help develop a comprehensive infrastructure framework was the president announces the priority in his address in 2018. transportation is one component which is why i am joined by my fellow cabinet secretary. the initiative includes but not limited to drinking and wastewater, energy broadband and veterans hospitals as well. the goal of the president's proposal is to stimulate at least $1.5 trillion in investment spending and that includes a minimum of $200 billion in direct federal funding. the guiding principles are one
to use federal dollars as seed money to incentivize nonfederal infrastructure investment. two, provide for the needs of rural america. three, streamlined permitting to. >> up project deliveries and reduce over way burdensome regulations. as a transportation secretary and particular pleas that secretary acosta is here. some estimates put our country's infrastructure needs at approximately $4 trillion. we could not address the challenges with federal resources alone or by borrowing. that approach will crowd out the capital markets, hinder economic growth andri job creation. the president's plan allows the private sector to help in the building of our public infrastructure. nonprofit endowments and pension funds for example have
conservative investment by public infrastructure which has collateral that will not walk away. addition the private sector involvement helps to allocate risk. under well-structured -- if the project is not successful the private sector bears the cost instead of the taxpayers. the department recognizes in different regions require different solutions. the private sector's investment in public infrastructure is currently allowed in some form in 35tm states. the department is also implementing the president's when federal decision which was announced august 152017 to speed up the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce costs.
the inefficiencies stemming from multiple agencies making positions on a single project must be addressed. mr. chairman, senator nelson thank you again for inviting me and i look forward to answering all of your questions. >> thank you tends -- secretary chao. secretary ross. >> thank you chairman thank you members, thank you for the invitation. chairman thune ranking member nelson and members of the committee thank you for the invitation to testify on the president's infrastructure initiative. as president trump has long said our nations infrastructure is crumbling and we desperately need better roads, bridges, highways, railways and waterways across the country and if we are going to continue growing and creating jobs and developing the 21st century workforce we must
build this new infrastructure with american heart, american hands and american grit. first our plan will streamline permitting for infrastructure projects, and we will bring the process down from the current average to two years or less. here in the room is the president's chart that illustrates the 120 some odd steps required for infrastructure permit approval. so most taller than i am. it's a wonder anything ever gets done. the process would provide certainty, and free up capitol currently wasted. congress is working hard on deregulation. over the past year the department's regulatory reform
task force identified over 50 deregulatory actions that will unleash american ingenuity. many of these efforts focus on regulations that prevent or delay infrastructure projects, notably our national marine fisheries service and it msn is committed to reduce processing time for informal consultation under the endangered species act from over 100 days to just over 50 days by eliminating unnecessary steps, increasing tracking and improving workforce management. we are already exceeding that goal. as you know the administration's infrastructure initiative proposes to leverage 200 billion federal dollars to spur up to
$1.5 trillion in total investments. to accomplish this the federal government will partner with state, local, tribal and private sectoril stakeholders. to be clear this is not privatization of infrastructure, rather we want to target spending to promote states and local investment while incentivizing public private partnerships. the goal was to amplify every taxpayer dollar and to restore control to local government. today that will focus on the 20 billion-dollar transformative project program that will be led by the department of commerce. commerce chairs the committee providing federal aid for bold and innovative pack is, transformative projects that would dramatically benefit communities across america.
those projects that would not attract your investment without federal incentives because of the risk of their potential local and regional impact that would provide significant bang for the buck if they succeed. congress is already for paired with ideas. surgically target of projects like regional health concepts that link multiple states of economye satellite based broadband new and expanded space space, block chain and supply-chain management, improving congestion and dredging technologies for deep reports. another good example is no's rescission navigation project
that transmits high-resolution safety contours, wave heights and other features to help mariners safely navigate congested waterways. the system was applied to the port of long beach leading to a four-foot increase in draft allowing for larger ships and increase traffic. tankers now cann vote $8 million more each than previously and the total cost of the project is only $5 million. finally commerce is developing an infrastructure program for the selectu.s.a. investment summit this summer. it's a major federal program to promote infrastructure and foreign direct investments. last year we had over 3000 attendees. this year the young king of
spain will be one of our speech or features -- featured speakers. the department is addressing how to bring broadband to rural areas in support of advanced manufacturing telemedicine and the evolving digital economy. komer stands ready to work with congress to develop this comprehensive legislative proposal . the america first strategy must restore our crumbling infrastructure. it's essential to jobs, economic growth and national security. it's time to build a stronger america. thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. look forward to your questions. >> a few secretary ross. secretary acosta. >> chairman thune ranking member nelson and members of the committee thank you for the invitation to testify today to outline how the president's
infrastructure plan will strengthen what is the greatest workforce in the world, the american workforce for last friday the secretary of labor statistics announced the strongest month the job creation numbers since president trump selection with nearly 30013000 jobs now added. the american job creators have added nearly 3 million jobs since the election. unemployment has fallen to 4.1%, 17 year low and manufacturing in login and construction collectively have had the highest month-to-month growth rates since 1998. the president's infrastructure plan has the potential to expand and deepen and extend the positive trends for years to come. it is a great time to be a jobseeker in american a great time to be a job creator in america. the president's plan not only
invest in physical infrastructure but also invest in work worst development and as we build infrastructure we must also p ensure that we think abot the american workforce, that we build this infrastructure and ultimately benefit from these efforts. the president's plan includes commonsense targeted approaches to funding and flexibility so thatat americans can obtain education directed toward a shared goal that we all have, that good safe job. theg present plan proposes for important workforce areas. one, high-quality short-term programs that provide the certification or credentials for in demand jobs. this is a d big one. extend pell grants. secondly reform the technical education programs to ensure
that we have access to high-quality technical education to develop skills that are needed and required in our economy. three, better target federal work-study funds to help obtain important workforce experience while they are in school through programs like apprenticeships and four reform occupational requirements for qualified individuals that are working on are nations infrastructure projects. let me take each of these one at a time. currently federal law prohibits congress from using grants for courses and programs that do not meet certain length requirements. short-term work development programs provide immediate economic returns by helping job skills and education that they need to join the workforce right now, quickly. infrastructure for extending
grant eligibility to these types of certificate programs that provide credentials. it's real simple. if the american workforce prefers a credentialed program at the same institution over a longer term program why can't they not take the shorter program now and start making money more quickly? e secondly the technical educationall program. the president's proposal would reform career technical educational programs. specifically the proposal calls for improvements that focus on funding and high schools with emphasis on programs that provide hands-on technical experience. the strategy will help create a pipeline of skills prepared to meet the needs of our economy. heard federal work-study. there's a need to update federal work-study programs to better supporte' students pursuing carr
and technical education. those funds are disproportionately distributed to four-year colleges and universities that have been receiving them for decades. this advantage and qualified colleges and other programs that are more focused place readiness and skills that the economy is sdemanding today. give the structure calls for updating the funding formula for setting these work-study funds to schools with strong records enrolling individuals and pell grants. and finally the president's proposal includes a provision ts reduce license barriers that prevent americans from using their skills across state lines. i have talked to so many state and local officials and i have offered the following advice. if license aren't necessary laminate them. if licenses are necessary and sometimes they are, streamline them or make them reciprocal with other states so the president's plan calls for
infrastructure projects in federal funds to recognize out-of-state licenses speeding project delivery and cost in providing something very important to our workforce, mobility and flexibility. the work worse components of the president's infrastructure plan will empower americans to build skills and will allow employers toto obtain portable credentials to work with their employees and in the end this is going to create good sustaining family jobs really look forward to working with your committing other committees to advance what is the shared goal of good state jobs. hymn thank you secretary acosta. secretary perdue. >> thank you chairman thune and ranking member nelson and members of the committee. my colleagues have done a great job describing various aspects and you will have done a great job in demonstrating your
knowledge that the need and opportunities we have before us. i think it's the goal of this administration to work with thes congress, the senate in the house and determine how we get that done. there's no dispute about thesmi need for infrastructure for america for job creation and for others and it's up to all of us to deliver it. i represent as you all know in the usda arra constituency and very dependent on infrastructure. i think america's advantage in the world logistics of the surplus in her export of agriculture frankly has a lot to do with the infrastructure that's been in place over a number of years both our roads, the rails, the waterways in this country that contribute to our ability to deliver farmer produced in rancher produced products in the world in a very competitive fashion. it's very important that we continue to do that as well. surface transportation is extremely important. roads and bridges inn rural ares
word for structure does not transport across bridges contributing to a lack of productivity. certainly the waterways contribute to a productive america and are very vital. they are years old and some of these locks have failed in several states and thousands of producers as well as billions of dollars in the cultural productivity have been impacted as well. surface transportation and let waterways are important as well and her colleagues have done a great job describing those needs. you all have identified and also talked about and i think there's a lot of energy about an area that i think is probably as transformative as any man should. mention the interstate highway system of 1998. 1936 with the raa act.
we see what the electrification of america did and the connectivity with our telephone system did where we could talk among ourselves and communicate. today the internet, high-speed internet is that interstate highway of the 21st century and we need a ubiquitous interstate high-speed internet system across this country not only for the farmsteads and arra towns but the fields of america paris look at the technology that exists in the illinois that persist in agriculture were real example is with a high-speed internet technology of gps and the satellite. we could get about a 20-bushel per acre increase with almost half the input did you talk about real productivity increases, their products on the shelf today that manufactures are waiting to deploy when we have the opportunity for a blue
ubiquitous broadband activity and frankly this will only spur more as we get there. i'm very pleased in the interest in the energy regarding ubiquitous broadband across america in that way. i do believe it's particularly transformative in that area. how do we pay for it? obviously we have a recommendation and an opening opportunity and that so that's really where we all comeni together. .. american people because it's needed. it was a very important issue. thank you for the opportunity to visit with you. >> secretary. >> thank you. >> senator, thank you.
my privilege to get to see you into the other members, i'm excited to be here today, to sit before you with a distinguished group of men and women who most cases elect to come and serve their country. their great partners. we sit before you today to discuss the presidents building a stronger america plan so we can have this discussion, how we upgrade and modernize our nation's infrastructure on the processes we use to evaluate and approve these projects. the fact that these four cabinet members are sitting here underscores very clearly the emphasis the president is put on this. he understands the far-reaching
impact that infrastructure has across the federal government. in my capacity as secretary of energy and as a private citizen, i have been blessed to travel almost every state in the nation over the course of the last 20 or 30 years. in far too many places it has struck me about how outdated the infrastructure is. there's too many instances where it's on acceptable state of disrepair, it's damaging our nation competitiveness and our citizens quality-of-life. fortunately, there is bipartisan agreement that we have to do something. we have to built and biltmore.
when i say infrastructure most people think about roads, bridges, seaports and waterways and assets that are considered public infrastructure. but infrastructure also includes avastin privately held onto and operated network of rail, wires, nearly 2.4 million miles of pipeline. it moves energy to american families. our economy relies upon that. this interconnected web of critical assets carry products that fuel our cars and homes power businesses. much of the infrastructure goes unseen. but the moment the lights don't come on the heat isn't there people are paying attention. as a secretary charged in
supporting america's energy sector infrastructure i am focused on the strength of that infrastructure and security. i'm not a regular witness here in front of this committee. but i never miss an opportunity to share with the members of the senate, the work that we're doing at the department to enable industry, system operators, regulators to protect america's energy infrastructure from cyber or physical attacks. doe is in the process of establishing a new office of cyber security and emergency response.
to enhance the resilience of our energy assets and better protect from the screen cyber threat. both the public and private sector need to upgrade and modernize our physical infrastructure. just like sonny, the governor i enthusiastically support the way the president is planning to do so. let me share why. the president's plan embraces america's time-honored federalist tradition. too often you have heard me say this before i even took the current job, when washington sees a problem it imposes these top-down mandates for these uniquely local challenges. we recognize the local need and build with our national interest in mind.
is based on the notion that common sense based on the peop people. the president's plan gives the nation's governors the power and flexibility these projects will benefit the respective states and equally important the president is committed to reforming the federal process the federal permitting process to reduce the burdens in red tape. this is a good example. it is fractured and redundant and requires projects to navigate a maze of federal regulations. he wants to see that process streamlined and substantially cut back. it's also important that we take
into account the tax reform law permitting reform a good businesses the confidence, certainty and freedom they need to take transformative projects from conception to completion. finishing up i want to give you an energy-related perspective on what this means. america is in the midst of this stunning transformation. thanks to the president's policies were sharing resources around the world. sharing her and energy abundance has implications here and abroad the freezer allies from unfriendly sources and reduces our trade deficit. domestically the jobs created those who have those jobs in your districts the power that are energy industry is having out there, beyond energy
permitting our infrastructure will combine to revive our nation at a time when it is needed. mr. chairman, my colleagues and i urge you to support this and we look forward to working with this committee in congress on its enactment. thank you. >> the fact that all of you are here today sends a powerful message about the commitments to the nations infrastructure. is it fair to interpret your presence is assigned to work with congress on a bipartisan basis to tackle the issue. >> absolutely. >> yes i don't think we would get it done any other way. >> one of the top goals outlined
would be to reduce red tape and complete projects faster. as i understand their close with this highway author reauthorization. >> there's two outstanding which we hope to get up by june. >> but if we did something that call for more streamlining you to be prepared to take that question initiative on? >> recent reforms are helpful but they don't address multi agency, multi- departments of reform. we need to address these crosscutting issues. finishing it up the president's decision announce august 15 of
last year would address multi agency and multi- cabinet permitting requirements. >> the follow up on that, the part that you provided showed how complicated that practices. could you elaborate on the remaining complexity and how the proposal would continue to improve. you mention the multi agency coordination. any other thoughts about that. >> we all want to protect the environment. were not going to compromise the environmental protection there are commonsense ways in which the permitting process can be rationalized and streamlined. for example much of the permitting is duplicative.
they are redundant and often require surveys to be done sequentially instead of concurrently. they disallow sister agencies to share information. each agency has to go out their own survey in a different time frame so that it's a day or two behind. these studies are extra work. the way to approach it would be to move make this standings go concurrently and allow sister agency to share information with one another. these are the streamlining efforts were talking about. >> all try to be brief here is the governor that had to stay with multiple ports, beaumont,
corpus christi and brownsville corpus christi for instances support that has had a project to make it more efficient to dredge it out and upgrade. it's been on the books for over a decade. from time to time you get federal agencies that are in conflict with each other. 61% of the crew that goes out of this to be able to allow that project to go forward and they have the money available. it's not a matter of coming up and asking for more money, they're asking for federal agencies to get out of the way and give them approval.
the something the president is talking about that you each might have examples where federal government agencies are sometimes in conflict with each other for the slowness to which they move is so essential to this country at this time when we have an ability to affect what's going on in the world because the geopolitics of oil and gas and for us to have federal agencies and government that for whatever reason cannot give the green light to these agencies and states to go forward and get infrastructure going. >> secretary purdue, you're the stewarded different funding programs that are ensuring real americans have access to broadband. i agree that that is a transformative infrastructure
approach to allow people to participate in the technology and innovations that are more populated areas we enjoy. the previous and ministration did not effectively administer some of the programs focused on broadband deployment. what are you doing to ensure the loans and grants him a will be used to bring broadband to unserved areas near taken steps to make sure you're not overusing broadband. i think that something expressed in it added to the detriment of those that do not. >> no doubt that the allegations are accurate. what we see in the grant and loan processes you have a great grant writers out there and they
come repetitively to the bucket looking for more. it's a roll of all the federal government that is not really part to play the broadband money in a strategic way. you have to start with good facts and accurate data. we have some concerns over the fcc data map and were trying to work in her agencywide with commerce and fcc to make sure we have facts on the ground of strategically how we need to deploy. there's a money going out for broadband and how do we deploy that in the most needed areas rather than just appropriating loans and grants in a greenhouse environment showcasing what can be done. our interest is in rural america. we have to start strategically
of the facts and data where we are and where we want to go and then is step-by-step of how we want to get there. i rural development team dispersed across the country does a great job this is an area where we have not done as well as we have like in the past but our people recognize that and are taken the criticism and allegations seriously and are working to make sure we do what you caution against witches over building things and having onto competition areas very don't have any in other places. >> mr. secretary purdue, thank you for attending to the needs
of florida citrus that lost 100% of its crop in the hurricane. as you said in our conversation, we can get this resolved in weeks not months. i think you for your guardianship and your modernization of the nation's nuclear arsenal. and especially its modernization and all that nuclear's -- thank you for your services use attorney for you understand the importance of the rule of law. secretary ross thank you so much for attending to things like the single point failure of the g4 which flies above the hurricane
which is to improve the accuracy by 15% of our projections as well as its intensity. that single point failure has been down for maintenance in both the 16 and 17 hurricane seasons. into all of you, please continue to watch the bias in the administration against science. science for hurricane force testing science used in nasa and each one of your agencies. where this idea comes of refusing to understand science and to accept it and use it,
please be on the lookout. secretary child the administration's infrastructure plan calls for state and local communities to bear more of the cost of infrastructure by raising taxes and increasing private-sector investment. in my state, three of us here some of the residents are facing the burden of increased local taxes and highway tolls. the plan that is laid out on infrastructure, wouldn't that increase the taxes and tolls. >> they're not the only option for financing infrastructure. there are many other creative ways. that's what we are encouraging people to examine. this asset recycling, other
types of access to public and private markets that would be in addition to those you mention. were agnostic to the methodology. in the federal government owns only 10% of the roads and bridges of this country. the majority is borne by the state local governments. >> staying county roads, that is true. they're paid for by taxes so, apart private public partnerships are great but when you do here going to have to put a toll so the private entity can in fact be reimbursed so their investment has revenue coming
in. there's only so much of the tollways the public will accept. i don't expect to to have the answer. >> tolls are not the only option. and were agnostic as to what financing methodology we want to come in partnership with the federal government. >> but when you have private investment in they have to be reimbursed. the have to have a return on investment. >> the private activity bounds it can be different kinds of financing. in conjunction with the federal share. >> in the private activity bond is the taxpayers subsidizing. but that's only going to get you so far toward $1 trillion worth of investment.
were about to pass an faa bill and what the past bill we passed a requirement that if you check your luggage and now the airlines are charging fees for the checked bags so we put a requirement and that if you don't get your bag back your at least going to get your $50 he paid for that bag reimbursed. but your department has been sitting on implementing that faa part of the law that we enacted one year ago. can you give us an update on the. >> i'm not here to defend the airlines. but we believe the current information that is on the website is transparent and sufficient. in light of the fact that you're asking about it i will take
another look. >> thank you so much. >> chairman, thank you. imitrex my first question to secretary ross. we as a subcommittee had a hearing yesterday on communications and technology. one of the themes expressed was the lack of accurate mapping to determine where broadband is absent or the services deficient. the fcc has recently issued some maps related to mobility. ncaa within your jurisdiction was the recipient of a budget request of $50 million for mapping. what is the relationship between fcc in their efforts and how to make certain that we do this in
an efficient way so we can make a determination for the support were the support comes from funding is appropriately spent. secondly, everyone that i heard yesterday in the hearing indicated the inadequacy and the inaccuracy of the mapping. how do we get it right? >> that's a lot of questions about. i can assure you there is extensive cooperation between ncaa and the fcc particularly under the new leadership. working hard to duplicate of spending. were working hard to make sure the dollars that are effectively
spent in terms of creating much more accurate and extensive mapping. i think accuracy and extension both issues and the mapping area. >> i would ask you to pay attention to the accuracy and make sure we get it right. this committee and others are interested and willing to we don't have the information in my view that tells us for that money could be spent. >> commerce through an taa created first met which is bringing 9/11 nationwide and a lot of the infrastructure that comes with us in the venture that we did will provide some of the needs that can support role
broadband. this is going to be ubiquitous i think it will help with this significant problem in the most rural areas which is low-density population. to the degree we can get infrastructure there now would be a big help. another great new thing of these constellations of low orbit satellites. those are going to be a big help because it's a low-cost way of providing broadband on a broader basis. we think technology is coming through it is something that needs to be used very effectively as these constellations of low earth orbit. >> thank you. madame secretary. i want teresa topic about the
federal government rules and regulations to get dollars more quickly kansas city has received funding in the fy 17 omnibus passed last year for a project and i know transit is outside of this committee's jurisdiction. the transit is an important part of our infrastructure plan. there has been no money received from the department of transportation met $29 million is still sitting idle on each month of delay is costing the project more money. could you ask your staff as to why those dollars have not been forwarded to kansas city and how we can help solve that problem.
>> will take a look. >> arteries the same issue with you in regard to coordination. i've seen circumstances in which in my view we have used the dollars to over building communities that have already had to join in your comments of what i heard about sorting out where the seller should be spent get to the rule places that have little or no service as compared to using our u.s. into a service and using that to pay for additional services. i want to lie at the opportunity to respond to that. your folks are working closely with us and i express my
gratitude but i will follow up. >> mr. chairman thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony as i have been sitting here listening to testimony been trying to find out how we deal with this problem. we agree is heard from the testimony that are good at identifying the problem. we have the identification of the problem down cold. but that's not the challenge. the challenge is how we will pay for. if we knew how to do that this would've been salt a long time ago. five heard anybody talk about that we want private companies to have to roads and i don't know what the breakdown is. right now local governments are stressed saying that their new
there cap, they don't have the resources they're used to having federal projects where they have 20% to the federal government puts in 80%. right now you have a plan that says will give you 13% ten you come up with 87%. we have two former governors here and i know what your reaction would be the president said will give you 13%. the federal government used to do 80 and we've now flipped it on you. it doesn't seem like a plan when states are stressed. i for that we could just go into debt more. but the problem is you still have to pay it. so this administration comes forward with a concrete plan as to how to pay for let's be
honest with the american people, this is just smoke and mirrors. i do have some specific questions in the proposal talk about giving flexibility to organizations to move away from requirements of the federal investment is de minimus. how do you define those exemptions and i hope they would not be by american provisions. would you agree that we will protect those as critical components. >> the president has been clear about that. we've been vigilant on that. on the issue davis bacon i may differ but this needs to be done in a bipartisan basis.
but it could be very hard to achieve. >> let me be briefly respond to needs to go forward on a bipartisan basis. i would agree with both statements. >> the american workers have a family sustaining jobs. i hope everybody agrees and i hope will put a lot of people to work in these programs as well. in order to have a family sustaining job you need to have a fair wage. this shows that there's folks who are not getting paid the minimum wage. even though cases are brought to collected most of think it back to the workers.
overtime laws not enforce cost an estimated $15 billion in lost wages. they don't even get a minimum wage. that's tough to sustain a family on. to need additional authority to enforce these laws was there a lack of will? >> as i testified last week there is no lack of will and are enforcement on minimum wage laws is quite strong. one of the issues we see on the private side is that these enforcement act since are costly and take a long time. one thing we just rolled out as a pilot project is called pay. if any employer currently sees they made a mistake right now
there is little incentive for that employer to come forward. if they come forward there's no clear mechanism to resolve the matter. we will work with them and make sure 100% of the dollars go back to the employees. if they come forward and we work with them on an internal product will make sure hundred% of the dollars go back to the employees and by bypassing essay we made a mistake and we want to pay what we all we hope the dollars go back to employees more quickly. >> this is absolutely critical and if i could just ask the question we have spoken on were facing the dumping of products
we been open to meeting with them. like to know if we can set up a meeting with the cherry growers in your office. >> senator peter's next. >> i don't think i want to thank you for today's hearing. for many americans democrats and republicans alike it is music to my ears you think that we would be further along on this process in this conversation that were having today. other than releasing a 50 page proposal the president has failed to set the stage for meaningful investment leaving people to wonder if this is a serious infrastructure campaign
on the white house. the fy 18 budget included 200 billing for infrastructure can proposal both/345 billion for infrastructure programs. we set aside $1.5 trillion and then set aside a single penny. when they enacted the tax bill can anyone guess how much of the 1.5 trillion the set-aside, nothing. let's not forget they make corporate rates permanent but they'll expire in a few years. they released in conjunction once again it cuts more spending than is included in the proposal so there's a net loss. although i doubt any of the
witnesses will give me a straight answer, the question my constituents are asking is the president is serious about rebuilding america help that he is why is every decision further away from that goal. i would hope that the department of transportation has analyzed potential opportunities for the debate. i know you are agnostic on this but can you give us a sense of what your department may consider either considered and discarded are viable have you done any analysis into what those revenue sources might be? >> i'm happy to answer your question.
the infrastructure proposal was always going to come third after the affordable healthcare act in after tax reform. it was an open show of cooperation and we wanted to work with the congress and not be prescriptive with legislative language. as for the department of the transportations budget is very much like the 2017. overall, it was pretty much the same. the mandatory part of the budget increase by more than 4% so the budget was the same. >> i agree with you, it's a very difficult question. everything is on the table. we look forward to working with congress on these issues. >> i don't think that's quite an answer of what i'm asking which is what have you considered.
what revenue options have you considered with the 200 billion federal price take. >> one is recycling of assets already honor local and state governments that are not really news. the example of australia is interesting in that regard. they have various local entities have sold off on needed assets and are ready revenue producing once. >> but i'm talking about the federal dollars. you're talking about state dollars. i'm asking has any of the departments consider revenue sources weather as the highway trust fund or other ways that are federal assets.
>> the capital resolving fund is meant to deal with the issue of inefficient use of real estate the federal government. it's a revolving fund because it can be used over and over and have a multiplier effect on it. that's a very specific use. on the other kinds of uses there are federal assets there have been considerations about air traffic control is your where the canadians use a nonprofit model for the air traffic control system on that is worked pretty well. you'll hear all sorts of ways to get the revenues together. >> i'm out of time.
there's opposition to privatization. i could not disagree with you more about the negative effects with that. that aside i commend you on your recent -- that opposing any policies i'm pleased that you cleared there by reassuring midwest that anything we hear suggesting that we are retreating and an embrace is simply not true. we've made many statements to that effect. you talk about how you will strongly oppose this including citing any efforts. >> a lot of these are not the problems of commerce. what is the problem is control
of imports of other countries. as you know we have levied new tariffs about indonesia with the entire u.s. practices that they have had. that's a big boost for the domestic biofuels industry. we intend to continue to protect the growers of america. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for being here today. i would like to enter into the record a statement from the national association of truckstop operators in the national league of cities have highlights concerns the commercializing rest areas.
>> secretary produced, the role infrastructure program in the administration proposal would allocate funding to the governors based on a rule formula. the rule formula would be based on role-playing milestone rule population. how does the administration intend to to find rule for the purpose of this funding? specifically as it relates to the ruling miles? the department of agriculture and other agencies do as well. what you see happening? >> a number of definitions across the federal government. we love to see that synchronize. it's one of the issues we deal with in a rural development program over what's eligible and not. oftentimes it misses the boat
over created the opportunity to be of regional partnerships in that area. we welcome that i would like to participate in any ideas that congress has obviously what were looking at pets where the infrastructures. from the farm to the market their rule rows that need to be traverse. if the bridges and roads are out there that contribute to our competitiveness do you have any suggestions right now or options that year presented to the administration on what the definition of role would be. he also made a great point on working regionally to have anything you can share with us.
>> anything less than a certain number, were looking at 35000 people in that regard and we talk about rule but there's many small communities out there and some of them are grown and suburbanites without to have a consistent definition to apply we would like to -- secretary ross if a rural infrastructure program utilizes a definition of role based online miles in population have you considered what impact that definition would have unrolled broadband deployment? >> the 9/11 program which comes directly under us is meant to be
ubiquitous. it's meant to serve all communities independently of size. we have not john a differentiation between one size or another. we think were solving the need for national nine/11 system so the first responders can take much better use of technology that has been the case. some of that infrastructure will reduce the ultimate cost or broadband. we are very proud that it is a public-private partnership. we contributed at&t is putting up something like $40 million of their money.
>> i was happy to see the principles put forward by the administration the role component. and to allow innovation in there. i realize a lot of the money is going to be going for roads and formula funding. but i think the innovation part when you're dealing with deployment of broadband services is important to this country as a whole. it's also extremely important to rural areas and agriculture. when you look at the internet of things, agriculture is the third-highest user on the internet of things. for that technology to advance,
expand and grow we have to be able to have that deployment of broadband across every area of the united states thank you. >> i do want to get into the area of this funding that were talking about. before that i heard what you said about the corpus of the same thing is happening at brownsville. when you look at the problems we have in terms of pipelines according to a 2013 report were gonna need $800 billion in investment infrastructure through 2025.
a lot of that would be through pipelines. one of the real successes we had their was doing away with the regulations entry mining things. i have to give credit to my fellow senator she's a liberal and world conservative. and we agreed to make changes. we need to do more. but you and i are from a very good oil states and natural gas producers. when boston is actually
importing natural gas from russia how do you explain that? we don't have the pipeline structure. if you want to tell us a little bit about what we can address with that. >> of the as brief as i can. you covered a lot of watershed there. you asked a question about how do you pay for this. as a governor, and i think sonny can back this up as well. one of the most important things you will do and i'm suggest as a senator who oversees agencies is in the foot powerful adjusting and permitting and regulations i will suggest to affect the
bottom line more than taxes too. the idea that somehow this is about paying for this. that's a good conversation to have but what can we do right now before we ever adjust this issue of how you get to pay for something. what are the costs like it's associated. slowing down the process we know that that road cost more even if you started two years after. as the people who have had real-life experiences of this those are one of the areas that you can look at.
i wrote a book about state sovereignty. my big supporter of federalism. but to never move energy to places that needed tress to clay and are states going to be able to stop the movement of interstate commerce and is it a national security issue. is that a discussion we need to have so that were able to get that energy to places like the northeast. i'm stunned that this russian molecules sitting in a tanker in boston harbor when were prolific producers of gas. >> if you would butterfly my
clock up about four minutes i like to ask my question. how many people on here on this well informed audience are aware that a major city on america is importing natural gas from russia. between the two of us were the number one producer. the midges say to thoughts. all of this discussion on how you're going to fund it. nine years ago we had a new president committed his name is barack obama. he wanted to have $800 billion for infrastructure. they had the house and senate in total control of everything. they got not but $836 billion. of all that they had, what
percentage do you suppose went to infrastructure and transportation? it was 3%. only 3% actually went to transportation. of that time barber boxer was the ranking member and actually shoes chairman. we introduced amendments to try to force the large percentage of it. one amendment was to make sure 35% would go to infrastructure. the second thing, and on the all be criticized for it. this is a democrat idea that came in 1962 said we need more money and revenue to come in and support the programs.
the best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates. a novel idea. it worked and he was assassinated right after that. at the end of three years the amount of money coming in the time reagan came in the total amount of money was $469 billion. sue said kennedy reduce the top rate so reagan came in and move the rate down. in all other comparable rates. the total amount of money raised as a result of that to 720 billion. that's what's happening together why are we so blind we don't see it. we went through eight years of obama with a gdp increase.
no one disagrees with the argument that for each 1% increase translates into $2.9 trillion. if you really looking to see what's gonna have keep those things in mind. we are able to put up with that amount of money and at the same time it's hard to put an amount on it. but we know it is a reality. so. >> you are well over may be considered the next one to the record. >> step is senator heller. if you would be a little bit more succinct. >> thank you for being here.
it's a distinguished panel and i'm glad that you're here to answer some of our questions. i want to direct the first part of my question to secretary perry. is pleased to hear talk about state sovereignty of federalism. you probably know the questions i'm going to ask. i'm assuming you participate in putting this budget together for your department. >> those are questions that could be requested for licensing. in the licensing at the mountain. i familiar with that request. >> yes. >> did you put that request in the budget? >> when i took the oh five oh office i held my hand up and said i was going to follow the
rule law and defend the constitution. it is the statutory responsibility to follow the law. that tells us that's what we will do to go through with that process that's what the dollars are therefore. >> there hasn't been money put in the line item since 2010. >> i would argue that the previous administration wasn't following the law. the law is clear says you should go through the licensing process. twelve following the law. the law says will go forward with finding out the answer on this. >> 2017 that request was moved from the budget.
in this budget is requested. did you have anything to do that? >> that's our budgets are. >> in 2018 that language will also be removed. to anticipate in 2010 you request that again? >> i follow the law and i suspect the result will be the same. >> thank you. thank you for being here for your help who is very hopeful i appreciate your efforts. i want to talk about the nuclear waste policy act. this is a transportation issue. talk about all the routes nuclear waste would have to cover the missive the federal government is looking at shipping 99495 -- in 2800 trains
in 2650 trucks over the next 50 years. they would use 22000 miles of railways and highways crossing over 44 states and a population of 175 million people. in your opinion does that look safe to? >> i'm very much aware of the sensitivity of you come out to him. i don't know the issue you're referring to well. >> between 10 million people live here. howard l.a. confirmed that a transportation accident with an ensuing radiological release was
possible. >> i'm not familiar with the issue you're talking about but i'll certainly talk to them about it. >> which you anticipate there's a real risk at these routes looking at this chart of the amount of transportation. >> i'm very embarrassed to say my contact lenses are not working today. this is an issue great concern to. so i want to be responsive. >> i want to reiterate my appreciation of the sovereignty of federalism and i'm right there with you. i think my time is run out. thank you for the opportunity to question. >> thank you. >> thank you thank you for holding this important hearing and for the secretaries for being here today. i'll start with thanking you for
the recent news that new hampshire and vermont will receive a timely dollar grant for the hartford bridge project. that will help connect to regionally significant places to interstate bridges that cross the connecticut river. you for thanks from other senators, were very grateful for the is concerning that they don't appear in the president's budget and we hope the administration will understand how important this funding and projects are tour state. a bunch a senator set the subcommittee hearing yesterday said they personally know the mapping information about conductivity and or states is inaccurate. it appears the fcc has just accepted two of our largest
cellular carriers advertisement about where there is coverage. there's not many places of coverage in our states. lastly, as a former governor sitting appear i will say that states have been doing their parts and raising revenues for transportation infrastructure. a republican infrastructure raise the gas tax a little while ago. generally speaking they help and make direct investment things that have a national benefit for things like national security and national economic growth. so count me in to the concerns that while the plan sounds good it is not backed up with the kind of federal investment that would make it a reality specially for small states like mine.
i wanted to start my question with an issue about our airline infrastructure. i wrote you last month along with several of my colleagues about requests you have received from the airline industry to rollback critical protections. if the airline were to achieve this goal some of the things we would see as conservatives include an illumination of the 24 hour grace. in the elimination of rules requiring airlines to disclose information of how consumers can file complaints and a potential weakening that provide prompts wheelchair press and elimination of rules requiring airlines to display the full price of the ticket to consumers when they shop.
i look forward to your full response to the letter but in the meantime can you commit to working with congress before anything is rollback in the industry. >> yes, i'm not here to defend the airline industry. but the string of things you mentioned some of it involves website so we think a lot of us on the website are ready. clearly i disagree i would appreciate that very much. and i just wanted to mention about three bipartisan bills among health committee members that deal with workforce training. so gateway to careers is one of them. the jobs act is another of your
commitments looking at those bills to see if there's a way forward. >> we spoke briefly before and i ready chatted of note to myself. >> the u.s. department of agriculture plays a large role in improving rural america infrastructure. across the united states the american society of civil engineers have said that much of the current infrastructure has exceeded its design life i will need upgrades a replacement. the repair and replacement costs are quickly rising and we can no longer afford to do for investment in the critical infrastructure system. how are you eating small tones like the ones i represent to repair their aging watering structure? >> i think you understand the
impact rule of element can have in these communities. particular over water treatment and availability we look forward to doing that as we go forward. funding is critical in those areas i we want to be more effective. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. and ranking member nelson. an important hearing and i'm glad it's happening. i think we've had a good discussion today. i like to start my questions on infrastructure. in particular infrastructure and a live u.s. mexico border. the union pacific -- was a 400 million-dollar investment that opened in 2014. it has spurred millions more by
other companies and has state local federal governments. the administration's trade policy on nafta has huge implications for infrastructure my state. and the rest of the border region which is home to millions of people. i know secretary. his familiar with it. nafta needs updating to strengthen environmental labor standards. but it has been on the books for nearly one quarter of a century. secretary ross, has the administration considered the impact some border economies and infrastructure if the trump administration unilaterally withdraws from nafta?
>> we've been visited by representatives of the transportation industry in the oil and gas industry, just about every industry you can imagine as well as state local officials. were highly sensitized on the mexican border and on the canadian border. so, we are keenly aware of the potential impact. >> has the administration made public any analysis of the legal consequences of unilateral withdrawal letter the fact that enabling this from congress is on the books and cannot be repealed by the president. >> notices and decision has been made to abandon nafta. the president indicated he's optimistic and sore we put a reasonable deal can be made on nafta. >> is it fair to say unilateral
withdrawal has been taken off the table? >> no. the president said he requires a good deal for the united states. if there is a deal put on his desk he will compare that with the alternative. >> since you're not taking it off the table now, within the last couple weeks i was down with the border authority group on the border, you can look on the fence that's up there and there is a huge amount of concern about the impact this could have on jobs and infrastructure. side urging that if you're going down the road of unilateral withdrawal i urge you to talk with secretary perry. i hope you will weigh in on this. i'm worried about the economic consequences for the region if we unilaterally withdraw.
i think if we get to the place where there's frustration that would be very unfortunate. have you ever toured the border region of mexico, texas, or arizona? >> i would encourage you in your current position to come down. i don't know if you have done the i think you've been in about a year. i think it would open your eyes. you can brief me on how you have been working with the mexicans. your position people view you as a key position. i would clear my schedule to go down and introduce you to folks and show you the consequences that could happen that could
happen on the border. one reason i encourage use because border infrastructure in the border roads, they see heavy federal traffic from border security. we also need to take that into consideration. and i'm running out of time so i'll probably to the rest of my questions for the record. i appreciate all of you being here. i really believe the boot position the democrats laid out the things that you're talking about there's a lot of room for common ground. i hope we can come together that. thank you mr. chairman and free to be for being here. it's an honor to have all five of you here. like to start secretary ross about the president's recent
decision to invoke section 232 of 1962 to impose a 25% tariff on imported steel and imported aluminum. i've had conversations with people including midsize company that employs 2000 people. the manufacturing varies products. many of which include steel. products steel is not the biggest product doesn't take up the most volume or weight but if it's a significant cost component of each product they have affirmative doubts about whether they can keep those jobs in utah or the united states once the terrace kicks in.
the product and price of products is that sensitive. in this that likely to be impacted very directly by these tariffs. secretary mattis, he noted that in a memo addressing u.s. demand for steel related to national security includes that it only includes 3% of u.s. production, not total consumption. so if the decision to impose these tariffs was based on national security concerns, how do you reconcile that with the fact that our national security concerns demand only 3% of u.s. production. what if any limits exist.
>> as you know the letter from secretary mattis that you're quoting from acknowledged that he regards the health of the steel industry is matters do threaten national security. so i think a full reading of the letter would include that commentary by him. the fact that it's a small percentage is one of the reasons why this is needed. the same mills that make more routine and make essential military products. for example, there is only one u.s. steel mill that makes a specialized material that's required for armor plate said may be a small percentage but to the soldiers and sailors are protected by it's pretty
important. >> and yet the terrorists are not limited to those specialized items. >> that was the second point. it's not like a car, car can go 20 miles an hour 80 miles an hour. a mill is more or less on or off. since the requirements now that were no low military spending time, those are not enough to keep a mill going. so they need commercial viability from normal nonmilitary products to survive. that's one of the things that make it very complicated. these things are interrelated. think about the danger that if we only have one mill for armor plate and one for aluminum that produces in high-volume the aluminum needed for aerospace
having one supplier is a dangerous thing i understand that. for that reason i would think it's a good idea to limit the application of the terror to the greatest extent possible as i think you're aware were about to publish rules whereby various affected parties can apply for specific exemptions for specific products. >> is this likely to go into a fullbore -- war and retaliatory against her agricultural products? >> we can't say that for sure. we know that there at the tip of the spirit. were not responsible for their reaction. i'm hoping that with the president is talking about can
nullify those and not move into an escalated trade war were agricultural would be damaged. >> thank you thank you senator lee. thank you mr. chairman. i apologize for not being here for the entire hearing. i was in reference to secretary purdue and thank you all for being here. and the comments on retaliatory actions every a group in montana without exception is unbelievably concerned about retaliatory action. usually when it comes is focused on a products. it's not a hit that family farmers can take right now. the question is about infrastructure deals with the infrastructure plan rolled out by the president. the infrastructure plan will
supply 20% federal dollars and 80% that will come from the state, county, municipal governments can you tell me in a state like montana where were required to have a balanced budget and i think we have to work for that. hello montana come up with an 80% match? >> the suggestion here there's various different programs in each of which have different economic characteristics to it. for example, if their assets the state has that it chooses to divest of that certainly count
says -- >> so if they were to sell their state lands that would count as a match. >> whatever assets they would sell could be eligible to be a match. the secretary chow said we are not focusing on specific sources of revenue, is the quantity of revenue and having skin in the game. >> i would just say. >> the federal program on highways is 80% federal and 20% state. in montana is having a difficult time coming up with the match. i don't see where the logic is to come up with 80% match. short of selling the roads which does not work montana absolutely not. it could be argued the largest industry even larger than agriculture some $7 billion, i
don't understand how the plan is well thought out. to get things built. >> for rule america, you are right, the region is different. the infrastructure bill sets aside 25% rule america. so it would be different. >> so i that there is 200 billion set out there and 50 billion set aside for rule america. was a match for that 50 billion? >> the pay for is something we need to discuss. >> i'm talking about were the people are gonna come up with a match. that's all. 300 billion at direct federal funding which will need to discuss. 25% devoted to rule america.
80% of the 25% is formula base. the remainder will be targeted investment. we understand role america has different needs. it will be in a formula basis. >> this infrastructure plan makes for great press release. it's going to invest a trillion and a half and infrastructure. but the state of montana right now is cutting programs because they don't have money. essential programs in our state. they just had a special session and cut programs. it's not like their role and in tow and montana's and different than wisconsin, nevada or colorado, or west virginia or any state. my last question. secretary purdue, your budget eliminates u.s. da for grant
program. it's a critical program for clean and safe water. how do you justify cutting that and then putting forth another one that won't build infrastructure. >> we do expect infrastructure program to build infrastructure but you understand and frankly what good job role development has done with the water program. >> that's why don't understand why it was cut. we have cities and towns rule in urban that depend on this. hopefully we can take another look at this. i appreciate the work we're doing and i know you good people, but we have to do better than this. >> went to thank all of you for being here for your service to our state. i will echo my statement
thanking them emphasis on rural america. and the emphasis on the broadband issue. in response to senator chester, and put a plug-in for west virginia even though we have difficult financial situations we went to the pole and passed a $1.5 billion infrastructure package that raise the gas tax. my hope is that when and if this bill goes through that the retroactive passage of it for our state we count towards our match. i have some assurances that it would. states can be innovative and swallow bitter pills for the greater good. secretary. , thank you for championing the
secretary ross mentioned regional hubs and concepts that links multiple state economies. this is one per project. i believes falls naturally into an infrastructure plan. can we speak about how a development masters with their need to improve the nation's infrastructure by building out using our energy dominance? >> it's important for the committee and general public to think about the concept and not get tied up in the simplicity of hartigan to pay for this you have to raise this tax to do that, i was a governor for 14 years and i understand the things that go back and forth to do that.
when i was a governor and i bet this was true for other senato senators, your businessmen and women will tell you just tell us what this attached structural be back at the regulatory climate fair and predictable. if we can predict and have stability in a regulatory climate and that's what the president is talking about and that's really important for us not to lose sight of. the key is that states like yours willing to come in we need this and we realize it won't leave this golden egg on everything. and we have a part to play. but the real key is sending the message to the private sector. if the private sector can come in and invest the because they
know the regulatory climate is fair and predictable. this apple appellation plan and building basically duplicating the chemical fruit print, the job second created i think this is a concept that lays out the president's vision for building transportation infrastructure inquiry back to say that the government has to pay this amount of it. there's a lot of innovative ways to do it. what i tell people is when you're going to build infrastructure you have three choices, you have tax roads,
toll roads, or you believe in the asphalt ferry. but the point is, there are some options outside of those three. one of form is to send a powerful message to the private sector so you can come in and invest you'll see rules change in the middle of the game. >> thank you. i know you've talked a lot about energy security at the american chemistry council forecast 36 billion in creation of a hundred thousand jobs. to talk about the region that has tremendous downturn in job loss and difficulties. serve on the thank you for working with us and with west
virginia and original concept to really revitalize that part of the structure and also create great jobs right here in this country. >> thank you thank you all for being here today and thank you for your service. let me begin by asking about the gateway project. this project is of the utmost urgency. but just a regional but a national project essential tort transportation network around the country. i would like you to commit that you will urge the president to support the gateway project. >> it is not our intention to get into an argument.
to clarify, gateway is a nickname for nine separate projects. these are unusual in their unwillingness to follow the process like other states. . . . to pressure the federal government to fund these projects there is a process. >> do you think it is a good idea? >> we are not arguing about whether the project should go forward. >> so you will connect to the gateway project. >> i can't commit to something i they did not come in with a realistic plan.
i urge you to advise the president to back off his threat to shut down the government over the gateway project. let me move on to another topic. you have said that yo he you wod finalize and enforcement strategy as soon as an administrator has been appointed. is have an administrator. can you confirm that and enforcement strategy has been finalized? >> absolutely. i send out a lette sent out a le beginning of december notifying all regulated entities that they had a responsibility.
to the classified information and lack of permanent security clearances. to undergo the process, i have acquired and no one is behind the process that has not indicated any issue in the process to undergo the process more recent hires didn't have classified information? >> as a practical matter they did not have access to the information. i am happy to provide details. i'm going to ask each of you to provide details of my time unfortunately has expired. the topic is important as we all
know itnd is an issue that has been raised with the white house staff and the use of interim security clearances. it is the topic of national security i would like to ask each of you to report to me whether any of your employeeste have clearance to the information. >> thank you to the cabinet members here today. we heard a plane this morning at the beginning of the committee hearing to pay for the infrastructure bilinfrastructurt was a massive 19% tax increase on the american economy so if i could get a yes or no question, do you believe a 19% tax increase would make concrete asphalt a more expensive as we build new infrastructure?
with a 19% tax increase make the u.s. products morepr expensive? >> it would wreck havoc on the economy. what they see the energy costs become more expensive in the tax increase? this allows the idea and begin a massive tax increase is a step backwards. secretary perdue, let's start with you. we have heard about the terrace.
you talk about the retaliatory tariffs.li do you think th consideration of the measure should factor into any recommendation on the tariffs or trade? >> we know how much steel it uses do you think and updated study would use the federal construction that considers the impact that they would have for the domestic supply could be helpful? would an updated study on the amount going to the constructions help us in determining the cost of the deterrent. would a steel tariff, have you had a chance to study whether the proposed tariffs would
increase the cost? >> i haven't looked in detail about what is going to be the final. there is no study on the cost of building pipelines in the united states under a 25 or 10% tariff. does itt show the imposition of the steel or aluminum tariff showing net positive impact on the overall labor market yes or no? did you consider the impact of the trade actions against the united states when you recommended the position of the tariffs? >> i recommended alternatives, one was quote us and one was the
broad-based structure and one was a highly targeted structure. we have a lively discussion for theon retaliatory tactics. the discussion went onn for hous for what the parties will do. for example, the proposal made by the european commission affects $3.5 billion of product, so if you compare that to the economy is two tenths of 1% of our gdp and those sales are unlikely to go to zero in any event.
we have to see. we will be seeing soon enough what kind of retaliation people might have in mind. should we move forward with the terrace when we don't have a study on the impact of energy when we know that the impact on agriculture will be increased in the odds of retaliation when we have a study onn job impacts should we move forward in the policy of retaliation when we don't have this information from the cabinet member. >> you made a broad statement and they are quite inaccurate. they've been very lively discussions of the impact onve e economy within the interagency process in the oval office to the president there has been a lot of attention paid to its.
so the implication that it's simply ignore it doesn't correspond with the facts. do you support withdrawal yes or no? >> i think the world trade organization needs some changes in the way that it operates. i think that we probably do need some sort of a trade relation it's not 100% clear that the rules are used for example one of the major reasons why it's important to take actions like the 232 is we've already got 100 some odd cases that's what happens under the rule you are required to be precise in the product, very precise to the
country and to the extent of saying products under two tenths of a millimeter or 2 millimeters of size so what happens is you" is thwas the tariffs and then suddenly the material appears in another country as a direct shipment after some additional manufacturing or the country that was doing the dumping did a little different stage of manufacturing itself and now you have to start all over. is that a yes or no? >> they are very much in the interest of the united states of america. not all can be answered with a simple yes or no.
i outlined my feeling to the best that i can. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate the administration coming out in full force with the cabinet secretaries on the issue of principles and the principles of o infrastructure. there is a lot of interest to move forward and it's demonstrating the administrations of focus. i want to thank you for doing that and for your help on the issue of the visa we need to reform it so that it is working for the needs that are -- i had
to preside over th for the lastt my comments about the opportunities witopportunity isn energy renaissance takingg plac. it's spot on and it's an enormous opportunity for the energy security, job security so i thank you for your leadership on that. there's been a lot of focus unfortunately on the pipeline and how a small segment wants to depose them everywhere. our pipelines more safe for example then the cars for moving audio or lng is if it's more
than the bible commodities the country needs. the technology allows them to become safer and safer as we use our innovation technology. i would like for the record to submirecords tosubmit an editore "boston globe." recently it was about how the editorial page " massachusetts s some kind of a fit of righteousness and wanted to disallow any pipelines coming across the state so guess where they are getting their oil from
now? russians. as opposed to americans. i would like to submit this for the record it's called the russian pipeline and its ugly toll. i would like to talk more on the issue of permitting. you came up to alaska last summer and essentially broke the logjam that was the longest it only took 40 years so can you talk a little bit more about the importance of not only your agency that all the agencies hereen working together so we cn get to this standard on the permitting reform streamlining
so we can get the common sense of permitting whether it's pipelines were bridges or roads or ports or harbors as opposed to nightmare scenarios like you will finally resolve on this sterling highway that helps nobody, certainly it didn't help my state. you are very kind to give me the credit that you also deserve a great deal of the credit. we appreciate the opportunity to work with you to let loose on that highway you pointed out the importance that we got to work. secondf on the issue of permitting euthanasia champion of permitting. streamlining the permitting process also has benefits it can bring out more projects that would be available for the private sector to fund and finance for example and there are commonsense ways to avoid duplication, doing a comfort and
rather than sequential permitting, getting rid of duplicate of permitting and allowing the agencies to talk with one another to share information, so most of these ideas you've outlined yourself since you've been a champion of permitting and we will continue to work with you on this. >> i appreciate those comments and i think that there is a bipartisan opportunity are both on theor commerce committee to moveve forward on issues that impact all of us as you know most of the labor unions and building trades are all supportive of the administration's principles. they backed the bill that i sponsored here so we want to work with you particularly on this permitting issue because it is vital to the country and i think we have an opportunity to move it and having all five of you and the president and the rest of the administration backing this is a really important statement. what most americans want and
what we need as a nation. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you to the cabinet members for being here. i definitely could ask each of few questions but i'm going to focus on the transportation as such an important aspect of the state of washington's perkins needs. we have had a chance to talk about the grants and we certainly appreciate your continued focus on that investment. i think it is one of the positive stories about infrastructure investment so that we can be cost competitive. i know that many people realize washington and its many ports are on the pacific and i think we have some of the largest grain elevators in the country on those in several spots just becauseau we are exporting so much, but shifting focus to transit at-large i know you were
in the house and expressed concerns about those projects that do not have a significant local match. in our states there is a 64% local share it earned a federal share of may of 36% thanks to the voters who decided that it was worth making v this investment. in fact i think the entire program is only looking at 16% federal money for the project cost of the reloading into the commuter rail and bus but that 16% is absolutely essential to have the partnership at the federal level. so do you think that particular example is the type of program the administration is looking for? >> your state has been skillful in getting these transit grants. washington has had more than its proportional share. it's not a criticism of this just an observation, so they are
familiar with the program. would you want to look at applications on a case-by-case basis and they've been pretty successful in the past. i will need a refresher on this particular one that we continue to work with all the applicants. >> does that sound like the right mix? i didn't see the testimony but i think you were talking about some not meeting the standard, 16% overall from the federal government that sounds like a good deal to me on the investment. let me take a look at the whole financing package as it is said that it. certainly we hope that there will be some shared by the state and local government and also if there is a private sector involved, certainly increasing the likelihood of a federal participation. >> i definitely think that it meets that standard and we certainly are looking for an infrastructure package that keeps the transit in mind
particularly in the robust way we are doing iwe're doing it ini said if all three commuter and light rail so we will definitely look forward to continuing that dialogue. i would be remiss if i didn't jump into the trade discussion just because my colleagues are bringing it up and i'm glad that some of you joined at the white house meeting to talk about infrastructure which i was glad we talked about the waterways and infrastructure investments related to the ports. we definitely want to have that level of investment to make sure the ports arets modernized and n particular the competition that we see as we see changes in the panel can now and the aggressive competition we have so i guess to you do you worry about some of these discussions, the
eastern washington wheat farmers are concerned japan or somebody is going to be pushing them out so we will all be for making the infrastructure investment but also want to make sure that the markets are open. >> i represent farmers and we always worry. certainly when trade disruptions come from infrastructure is very important. that's what we talked about in theal waterways. they've been a significant disadvantage and the need to make sure they continue to do that because the product from beginning to end logistics is a huge part of that so we are concerned over any kind of trade disruptions based on any other policies and we have to be very mindful of that. i appreciate the secretary and the president attempting to nullify any other concerns
regarding agriculture. >> we've certainly been in meetings with the administration that there would be winners and losers and i am going to do everything i can to make sure that agriculture isn't one of those, so thank you mr. secretary. >> thank you, senator cantwell. >> thank you mr. chair and thank you all for coming today to capitol hill. i know how busy you all are individually. i'm going to try to get through these questions. the first one i want to talk about is i keep hearing about the $200 billion to stimulate $1.5 trillion a very simple question i'm going to ask each of you yes or no how did you know that it would stimulate the infrastructure did you do some modeling or was there some analysis? >> they are leveraged one to 17
sometimes one to 20. can you submit that to my office? did you do modeling or analysis to ensure? i can tell you that the analysis concluded. you have to do this program by program because in each one the ratios are a little bit different fro, so in the incente program we think that the federal dollars will be leveraged somewhere between 4.1. >> here's what i'm asking. if you've been a modeling or the analysis just say yes if t you could send it to my office, that would be great. >> didn't say yes. thank you, secretary? i would convert to my colleagu colleagues. we are focused on the labor aspect. >> they have a history with
rural development over leverage and that is what we built our members on what the leverage that we have seen in the grant and loan programs. >> so you have an actual y analysis number? >> we have what has happened we can provide to you. we will send you what we have. >> i keep talking about a bipartisan infrastructure bill are you referring to capitol hill and working in a bipartisan way or are you suggesting the white house somehow invited the democrats in to participate in the play of? >> the proposal was submitted on february 12 of this year and we would've preferred that it would be done in a bipartisan basis. >> there was a discussion earlier about the pell grant. you proposed expanding it to allow students to use the fund for the short term training program i think that is great
but from what i see the president's budget keeps the funding for for theun next deca. is that actually what is happening? within the poker and program right now if a student wishes to do a certificate program in a community college, they do nothe get funded to have to actually a little in a full degree programs in order to receive funding. a program that needs a certain hour and credit minimum. so in many ways but how grant will fund the program would be less costly than the pell grant to fund the full program so this isn't really an additional. it doesn't carry a substantial pay for because there is already
a surplus. >> so what you're saying is that it's not shifting funds away. >> is expanding it in a way that instead of using the program for option number two it can use it for option number one. so we are giving the students for option out of the w b. we at shifting funds. >> within the plan there is a reference to rewarding the projects through the infrastructure incentives program and i know you spent time in las vegas thank you very much. you know many of the 17 counties or 15 are rural and along with arizona which also has a fair share of communities. we are working to invest and move forward as you well know. with the project benefit from this program as you envision it? >> it would depend on how it is
financed. >> but it's possible it could be? >> of course. >> there is no direct reference to the broadband funding in the incentive program or broader dedication directly for broadband deployment, am i mistaken is that true? >> i don' >> i don't see it anywhere and maybe since you've been talking about broadband. >> there is a discussion about that, but i don't think there's any kind of a destination. i would welcome that from the ubiquitous broadband i think that was left up as a concept to the desires. i echo everything my colleagues have said and i appreciate your comment with respect to start communities because when we talk about investing in our infrastructure isn't just horizontal construction, it's investing in broadband and communities particularly when it comes to the technology for the infrastructure so thank you for
coming to capitol hill today. >> secretary, thank you for visiting with us to discuss the infrastructure initiatives. one of the core components as you know is the incentives program which incentivizes states and local governments to establish nonfederal revenue for the most important projects. lastst year we did our part. we worked diligently to provide funding for the projects and i just have to say that i appreciate that the administration has recommended m look back to recognize these recent investments in prior actions made by proactive states like hoosiers. i look forward to working with other members of the committee to ensure investments made by their state as well asin mine ae recognized in the confines of the infrastructure proposal
which brings me to the question many hoosiers have welcomed the vibrant debate back home about what infrastructure priorities weat should have, where the mony should come from, how much they are willing to spend and so forth. can you speak to thepl multiplir effect that the incentives program within the infrastructure proposal creates by encouraging the states to follow the model and establish dedicated new revenue streams for the state infrastructure projects talks talks >> i would be glad to talk to the senator. we think that at a minimum there would be for-1 leverage provided at the state and local level and that as the states compete for the incentive program it might get as high as 7-1 leverage that is how we arrived at the estimate of the 500 to 800 billion coming from the
incentive program. >> that is encouraging and all the more reason to get urgency and focus on the efforts to make sure we are still investing. that would be fantastic for some of the projects even better. secretary or whoever, the secretaries would like to speak to this next one i will start by indicating that one of the hoosier state priorities is the completion of the eye 69 bridge. this runs from southeastern indiana where evansville is w located over too henderson kentucky. the project has long been a priority of hoosiers going all the way back to 2004 when the environmental impact study began. just. last month your staff met with the project sponsor to assist in moving this vital project forward.
on behalf of my fellow hoosiers i want to thank you and your team for your dedication and hard work with respect to this project. i am pleased that one of the four guiding principles of the administration's infrastructure proposal is to streamline the permitting to expedite the project delivery. i'm sure that this has been held up by several of my colleagues, but this scheme for the permitting and approval of federal infrastructure projects is something that can only be conceived of in washington, d.c. so the fact that they've made it a major priority to de- clutter streamline this is something i would come in and id applaud and to celebrate. the idea of designating one for the lead agency in setting the deadlines for completion of the issuance of the final decisions is welcome news to the people of
indiana. can you madam secretary or any of the other assembled the secretaries speak to the potential tpotential to streamls permitting process presents to the major infrastructurealal projects like the bridge and how regulatory reform presents a major opportunity to reinvigorate investment in infrastructure more generally? >> as a former governor i would like to address that. again we have experienced that and i'm actually quoted in the past as saying i would take a lot less money for promoting reform and we are just now hopefully this summer going to open up a road in this congested corridors of atlanta to begin the planning in 1995. haveur experience there we ten years regarding the bridge, so this is the challenge. what we are talking about isn't circumventing any kind off environmental law or protection.
it's really six sigma process management. it's really moving things in a way that makes sense point-to-poinpoint topoint withn in a case manager if you will permit and that is what we are talking about is to manage itth with accountability that does so for weeks or months waiting for anotherek answer and as mentiond earlier there is no reason we can't do these things competently rather than sequentially as it continues to delay the process so that is what we are hoping to do and i think this could be one of the best things we could offer america is this permitting reform to get things done quickly because time is money in any kind of an infrastructure project. >> it's easy to estimate something like one third of the cost of many of the infrastructure projects is consumed in legal bills into the
inflationary effect of delay said if you think about it, if it is anything like that, then you've already got in a 30% cost reduction in the cost of the project and that is a benefit coming from the federal government to the state and local t authorities that as of right now they don't have so it just the 20% of the direct contribution we could fix the regulatory. we have over the whopping amount of the states and localities that they have to take. >> the experience was 50 to 75%. >> thank you for the permitting improvement and thank you for making sure the taxpayer money gets even more bang for the buck. >> thank you very much mr. chairman.
are you all hungry for lunch you can answer that question. i was the first one here and since i'm the last one i want to thank everyone and for your hard work i guess i will start with you, secretary because i spent saturday with a number of our manufacturing companies in places like minnesota and we have a very low unemployment rate in minnesota that is exciting inn many ways, but we need to find more workers and one of them is immigration reform which i am a strong supporter of, but the other is doing everything we can to get high school kids that might not otherwise graduate or might prefer to have less debt and get a one or two-year certification and degree. one of the things the chamber showed me is a list of the federal job descriptions where the kids can only work if they are 16 or 17. then when they turn 18 they can
do it for longer. i also talked yesterday over there for human trafficking and she said you were looking into all of this. >> thank you for the question and we are certainly looking into it. we received a letter from a colleague raising the same issue with respect to training at hospitals and we are looking at what t they can be extended ande are also looking into whether it makes sense to create exemptions if the equipment is used as a part of some training program for educational program, apprenticeship program on the theory we rather they use it the right way when they were 17 and use it for the first time when they are 18. >> folks are tasked with coming
up with recommendations and as a matter of fact i asked just last week. >> thank you for coming to the midwesmidwest we were only playg together. he had a nice hat on and looked like he was ready for the midwest and i know the senator asked you about the rss but i just wanted to touch about the biofuel infrastructure. the 21 states would receive grant a funding through the biofuel infrastructure project and it is for blender pumps minnesota as you know has always been a leader on this. do you think we have sufficient infrastructure to get to the next stage where we are beyond that we want to make it a part of the mainstay of the fuel supply of one with many other sources. >> if we are successful in
getting their i think there will be a huge demand for these and there will be another opportunity to produce with ethanol. >> we've talked about this ine the past we have a big hub and see all of the jobs and i know the administration recently announced a memorandum of understanding between the state department and outlines subsidies given to the carriers. i'm sure you were involved in that so thank you and just wondered if you are committed to moving forward with additional policies. there are other airlines we are having issues with as well. we are certainly working with them. >> essential air service i know
some of my colleagues asked about some of the things i care about very much including these grants i will send you some questions on later with some specific issues from our state. can you talk about that because there are budget cuts would affect the central service. >> i am very concerned and sympathetic with the program. hearing the concerns of congress we shifted some to make the grants available. >> okay. very good. enjoyed your toast with the swedish minister last week,st gd job. the 2020 census is less than two been away and there've issues maybe we can go into later but how does the administration plan to ensure that it's rolled out smoothly
very early on as you know we began a diligent analysis of the cost projections that had been made and we concluded that they greatly underestimated the cost that would be needed to have a full, fair and complete consensus. we believe the money requested should be adequate to make sure it is covered and increasing the numberta of staff from where 800 that are employed to a thousand so that is a 25% increase in the outreach capabilities to the local community organizations. also, the budget has been
increased from 375 million that was in the 2010 consensus to 500 million now. so that is a one third increase in that and we think that reflects the changing mix of the population. we will be biting the media and having fiscal correspondence in 17 different languages. we are working very hard to make sure of completeness and accuracy. >> we've talked with you and are concerned about that. the world expo at keeshan prime minister that we barely missed it last time for 2027 it's going to come through the department.
since the pass of japanng in 209 but he can't take the global first place position for granted given that china, japan, south korea and the europea european e all challenging the united states to be firstal in deployig five g. given that it has the potential to boost by 500 billion create up to 3 million new jobs should the united states be nationalizing the aspect of theioan network? >> i'm aware of the proposal that has been made. it has been circulated within a the administration, with a couple of points, we regard this as quite essential to the commercial interests at the national security interest of the country so it is keenly interested in making sure that
we are the leader. there has been no final decision made and i don't want to get out in front of the president on it but i think that youk are aware everybody is focused on the utterth importance of the u.s. being the leader. let me make clear the position that it would be a grave mistake you and i have both been vocal
supporters of the president's proposal to modernize air traffic control systems. having the free markets benefits there've been some concerns raised that the world of general aviation about the proposal, but i remain convinced that the solution is possible that would enable the cost savings and safety improvement improvementse the environmental benefits while at the same time fully project in general aviation which is an important part of the transportation nationally.
do you think it is a subject worthy of consideration being included in the infrastructure package? >> restructuring air traffic control was proposed to address the congestion problem in the skies. the future contras contrast triw rate in which it is able to gain new equipment necessary. the proposal was to have air traffic control go into a separate nonprofit organizational structure that would also free up the trust
fundnd for the air traffic contl system but as the deficit reduction. they move into a separate nonprofit organization as the best way to address the issues that we have for the aviation trust issues leading safety still with the faa but it doesn't appear there are enough votes in the house or the sena senate. >> i understand that you recently visited your alma mater in texas a and m. and toward the center for infrastructure renewal at the campus that would serve as a leading resource for developing transformative infrastructure solutions. one project that i believe you are familiar with from your time as governor is corpus christi
improvement project into the port of corpus christi currently has the funding available to defend the port but they are having to navigate the army corps of engineers which can be at times slow and lea leave it o the project delays. one solution is to modify the engineers regulationsgu to grant more authority to execute army corps of engineers projects. they can save money and expedite which will enable more energy exports. >> they would make an interesting documentary about how the government can slow down economic progress with just a 15 year luck at the port of corpus
christi. i'm not here to testify about the corps of engineers. i will leave that to you to find some of the solutions. 61% goes out of the port of corpus christi from a national standpoint you are correct in identifying an alternative to the way that we've always done it to hit the streamlined substantially in the process so i salute your focus on this and wish you good luck and smooth sailing last year he visited
snap on tools. he used the stock to announce the executive order and during his speech that day, he promised a big infrastructure bill that would be constructive with american hands and steel. he claimed they would be taking new steps to follow through on his higher american pledge. i want to ask starting with you can you direct me to the bold new by america provisions in the
infrastructure? >> i tried to recruit to come to the state of texas and was unsuccessful. the issue here with the president was laying out was this bold vision congress play played. it is overriding the prevailing authority that impacts of the department. can you point to anything -- >> it is a prevailing authority. it is to emphasize this existing requirement that hasn't been emphasized in the past. >> that is the idea that we can go from ten to two years in permitting as a powerful message
on page 21 to 22 there is a provision on new flexibility for the targeted flexibility pertaining to the kitchen knife federal requirements is that they are in both title 23 and 49. is it your position that you are not advocating flexibility with regards to by america? the blueprint on infrastructure. >> you were referring to something, but i couldn't see.
it would never be to give the states additional -- >> much less so than any other previous administrations. this could contemplate the by america provisions flexibility. they are given on a case-by-case basis and i know from experien experience. it's the guy in america provisions. i'm asking whether he would disregard given the language on page 21 and 22 and refer you to the water infrastructure on page 27. there are senators to call the department asking for waivers because of certain circumstances
and the productive capacity. i think that you misunderstand it allows waivers. i am asking when you use the language in this blueprint amending the law to provide targeted flexibility to the states pertaining to the application of t the federal requirements f such as by ameri. >> so what is the question? >> does the link which contemplate disregarding -- >> know it just gives flexibility. >> i would appreciate your commitment to add clarity because not only does it not referenced by america once to suggesbutto suggest they could e requirements.
and the question in the context of h the terrorist what impact would the robusta by america policies in all of our infrastructure projects have on the u.s. steel industry i am a big supporter of by america. >> thank you senator bolton. thank you all for your indulgence i think we are going to wrap it up. we have questions for the record and ask as soon as possible if
you could get the responses back in two weeks we will keep the record for the amount of time. we covered some issues besides infrastructure but again we thank you so much for the commitment you have made to serve ande particularly on this subject we all agree needs to be addressed, so i hope that we can come to a common ground and move forward on the legislation that will address the infrastructure needs. if you haven't filled out your bracket yet, 12 versus 540 the university jackrabbit. with that, we are adjourned.
whether or not we have sufficient resources to fund an infrastructure package. but i think something will move and it may be along the lines of things that we talked about here here. we have broadband and hopefully the deal to expand broadband appointment. all of those could be put into an infrastructure package and how robust it is depends on how how -- and not back. >> inevitably that would be a big part. i think i will be true for all of the jurisdiction. we will be looking and as you heard this morning all of the members of the cabinet appear interested in streamlining and
expediting projects and clearly as delays often occur i think cleaning that process up will be a big part of whatever we end up doing. >> mr. chairman are you going to to. >> i'm not sure why their democratic objections. it's a pretty much a republican and democratic priority to fix this. i hope in the end democrats might be saying right now any concerns they have about this that we can get those resulting get a photo miss. if it doesn't get fixed now it's going to create serious disruptions. >> do you think you have the votes for that fix right now? >> i think we have. they are going to be so many things writing on this bill.
it's going to have varied ride shoulders and like you said it's a bipartisan priority. talking to democrats and senators on the senate and most republican senators who represent farm states we are going to be in a world of hurt in the farm industry. there's a sense of urgency attached to this and i hope we can find it with both republicans and democrats to get on this bill and get it passed. >> there are asking for. specific concessions. >> we will take a look at it. senator peters has been talking with some of the democrats who are thinking about signing on
and i think part of it is hopefully ringing them up to speed on what it is we are doing. a lot of the consents are being raised are raised on -- grounds 11 of the big reasons for doing this safety. 35,000 fatalities a year upon america's highways. there's a very compelling safety reason to do this. we obviously are very interested in doing it first and foremost to make sure that it's done safely and that's why we want to have framework in place that puts the guardrails out there so to speak and to do research and. if we don't move there's just going to be a lot of confusion and uncertainty and i don't think that's a good environment to promote a technology that could be very transformative for our economy.
>> if we put it on the floor we would get 85 votes so they are our handful objections to it right now are just that. there are in some cases specific objections to try to dress but some of this are sort of generic objections. if we can get a vote we will see. it's a freestanding bill. it's hard to get time because a lot of scheduling issues but there are other things will have to get done. >> on infrastructure thing are you concerned about the lack of how to pay for it? >> like i said we have to bite the bullet and come up with a new funding source.
like you said a lot of streamlining them permitting process and money allocated in the budget deal this next year for infrastructure but i think they are probably some other offsets that we get come up with to put together this package but a robust package the president is talking about we have to come up with this source of revenue and so far those haven't been identified. i think senator hatch is aware of the challenge that we have and looking for ways to address that. i know he in the past has offsets that can help with that but i don't know if there are any rough edges when it comes to pensions. i think the offsets are harder this time around but i do expect
there will be efforts made to come up with pay-fors and if we can identify those and how expensive the infrastructure package can be. [inaudible] >> the money? if they want, if they really want to do do it on the scale of what they are talking about doing at some point they will probably have to get a hind some form of pay-fors and i think it's going to take the president to do that. i don't think there'll be enough support for the revenue for the kind of thing they are talking about doing. thank you all. >> thank you chairman.